Talk:Mongol Empire
Why is there an entire section (which consists entirely of a subsection, which is not particularly good form, but that's another matter) explicity dedicated to explaining how the subject of the article does not play a role in the AoB stories? We might as well write about how the Conquest Fleet did not arrive during the Second Great War in TL-191. Turtle Fan 01:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :Because its a significant variation from OTL? Your example on TL-191 would be valid if there was a Race invasion during OTL WW-II. The article may need work but I think there is value in including discussion on how HT's work varies from OTL. Obvious things like Featherston is TL-191's Hitler are not useful but I think more obscure things like this are. ML4E 01:11, April 6, 2010 (UTC) ::This is an alternate history wiki. Almost everything is a significant variation from OTL. If something doesn't appear at all, not in any form whatsoever, it's safe to assume it's not relevant. ::How about this counterexample then: "John F Kennedy in Worldwar: JFK does not appear in the Worldwar novels. He is never mentioned to have been elected or nominated for President. His older brother Joseph Kennedy Jr was the Democrats' VP nominee in the 1964 election, but JFK himself is never involved." he does appear on one of he covers, which is rather annoyingly misleading. Or "Dwight Eisenhower is absent from TL-191 and, unlike Douglas MacArthur, is not accounted for." "Korea is not mentioned in MwIH." I really was interested as to how the superpowers' preoccupation with the GFF would change the situation there. Et cetera. Turtle Fan 01:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC) TR, I guess you're the tie-breaking vote. Not unlike those few months of McKinley's second term that he was alive for, when you were VP. Turtle Fan 16:35, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Uh oh--What happens when the tie-breaking vote abstains? Turtle Fan 00:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :Oh, I wasn't aware there was an issue. ::We've got three moderators who visit with regularity. I figure that when two disagree on whether to remove something the third should decide it. Maybe we should make that official policy. Turtle Fan 02:38, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :My vote goes with TF. 99% of the time, people will figure out that no subsection means no role in a given story. TR 00:55, April 7, 2010 (UTC) ::You'd think so, wouldn't you. Turtle Fan 02:38, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm not objecting to its removal, it really doesn't fit here and I don't feel strongly about the matter. However, the absence of the Mongols and their replacement by the Jurchens as a threatening nomadic peoples in the story makes me wonder if we could put the sense of this note under them instead? ML4E 22:16, April 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::I support that. The Jurchens are relatively obscure compared with other subjects HT writes on, so comparing and contrasting them with the Mongols will probably of benefit to readers. TR 22:23, April 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::An elegant solution. It's a much better fit and is more informative to the readers. Also, it would then be in a place where curious AoB readers would find it easily. I doubt anyone would purposely look up the Mongols for AoB information. Turtle Fan 01:34, April 8, 2010 (UTC)